ParvezMayar

Dusk Foundation does not have a problem with regulation.
@Dusk has a problem with where regulation usually lives... in documents that get interpreted after the trade, by whoever has the most patience and the least exposure.
You have seen the motif. A desk says "we were compliant". Another desk says 'you were compliant in spirit". A venue's ops team just wants to know whether to release the second leg. An auditor shows up weeks later and asks the only question that is actually important... which rule was actually in force when this thing settled?
When the answer is trapped in an email thread, you don't have compliance. You have a negotiation.

This is what "executable regulation" is trying to kill. Not the law. The late-night interpretation. The part where eligibility, transfer restrictions... and reporting triggers behave like social agreements until volume spikes and someone 'helps' to keep things moving.
And volume usually spikes... Yes it does, when there's no time left to argue about it.
Start with the parts that don't deserve poetry. A regulated instrument that can only be held by wallets presenting the right credential. A transfer that cannot move to a category of counterparty, even if everyone on the call wants it to. A lockup that is real, not aspirational. A reporting or disclosure trigger that fires when a threshold is crossed, not when someone remembers to update a spreadsheet.
Boring. Good.

That is compliance-native smart contracts in the plain sense... the asset carries obligations like a weight. You don't get to set it down when it is inconvenient.
Regulation-native design without custody. The base layer can stay credibly neutral while the instrument enforces who is allowed to touch it. The user still signs with their own keys. If the rule fails, the transaction fails. No one has to 'hold' the asset to prove they can say no.
This is where it goes sideways in most "regulated DeFi" attempts though.
They add the emergency lever. Not because they love centralization. Because someone always wants an override. A client screams. A deadline hits. A regulator asks for something in a format that wasn not anticipated. The lever shows up "just in case' and then it becomes the real control plane. People call it risk management. It's usually governance by backchannel.
Dusk’s approach only works if that lever stays out. Otherwise you are back to the same old style, the rules are in PDFs and the real rule is whoever was loudest on the call.
You can see the difference between Dusk foundation's settlement rules, in the ugly middle of workflows. A credential goes stale between trade capture and settlement and instead of a panic call the transfer simply doesn't clear. Someone routes an allocation into an ineligible address and it bounces, loudly and deterministically. A disclosure condition triggers for a subset of holders and, instead of "we will provide it if asked," the system can produce a cryptographic proof that the narrow claim you need proven held under the policy in force... without turning the entire balance graph into public entertainment.
On Dusk, that “policy in force” question is not supposed to live in vibes. It has to survive committee-ratified finality and still be defensible later through bounded disclosure, even when the credential rules or evidence package requirements evolve.
No favors. No "this one time", No selective memory.
That's the line Dusk foundation keeps coming back to... privacy with auditability. Not secrecy as a preference, not transparency as a virtue. Just enough disclosure to defend settlement later, with selective disclosure by rule, not by relationship.
And no, it won't magically remove legal ambiguity. A lot of law is interpretation: materiality, reasonableness, changing guidance, legitimate exceptions because the world is messy. Dusk can’t encode judgment. What #Dusk can do is remove the cheap ambiguity, the kind created by sloppy enforcement and operator discretion.
Fewer moments where the rule is 'whatever the operator decided at 3 a.m.' More moments where the system can say, cleanly, "this passed under the rule set in force then", or this didn’t.
If it did not, you donot get to negotiate with the settlement layer. You go negotiate upstream, where you should’ve been arguing in the first place.
And then comes the part nobody likes... the rule is correct, the market is screaming and the only honest outcome is that the trade doesn't clear until someone fixes the problem where it started.
$DUSK